where is the evidence for alien visitation?

[Light]

Mmmmmmm...... Ben Rich, chief designer of the F-177 went on record publicly stating that the 1950's style Flying Saucer is the "ultimate" shape for defeating radar, eh...?

Well, gosh. How could one possibly argue with so august a person as Ben Rich... Except that, had Mr Rich actually stated anything of the kind we'd know for a fact he was blowing it his arse on account of about the very last shape y'could possibly imagine that would facilitate stealth characteristics in a vehicles airframe would be you classic "Saucer" of the 1950's...

Smooth, curved, aerodynamic shapes refract radar - that's why the B2 is the boxy, flat faced piece of crap it is in form. It's not just aesthetics, its a form that does it's job.

So, I'd be concluding, and not unreasonably here at all, that wherever you read this so called declaration by a "senior" aircraft designer, it wasn't actually a statement written by the gentleman sited in person. Was it?

Nope, I really didn't think it was....

Stealth characteristics my arse.

Here's an interesting bit of information.

I did a Googe on Ben Rich+saucer and all the hits I got were from questionable
sites dealing with UFO sensationalism, quirky news sites, and a couple of books from Amazon. Although he was a real person, he is now conveniently dead so he cannot refute the claims. Ever notice how often the nutter pick a famous or prominent person - who is always dead - to pin these quotes on?

 

[snake river rufus]

well said Mr Anonymous. There seems to be far too many quotes from experts floating around than there are experts to say them.

 

[glenn239]

Well, gosh. How could one possibly argue with so august a person as Ben Rich... Except that, had Mr Rich actually stated anything of the kind we'd know for a fact he was blowing it his arse on account of about the very last shape y'could possibly imagine that would facilitate stealth characteristics in a vehicles airframe would be you classic "Saucer" of the 1950's...

I'm assuming this is some sort of request for further information?

Ben Rich headed the Lockheed Skunkworks after the retirement of Kelly Johnson. His book, called Skunk Works, can be found advertised here,

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0316743003/104-8764274-7409548?v=glance

Copyright 1994, First Edition.
Little, Brown & Company
(Library of Congress data available upon request).

The original F-117 was one of several solutions to the problem of low-observability. Obtaining a satisfactory RCS with the tools of the day wasn't an easy task. As per Rich,

"Ufimtsev has shown us how to create computer software to accurately calculate the radar cross section of a given configuration, as long as it's in two dimensions", Deny told me. "We can break down an airplane into thousands of flat triangular shapes, add up their individual radar signatures, and get a precise total of the radar cross section."

Why only two dimensions and why only flat plates? Simply because, as Denys later noted, it was 1975 and computers weren't yet sufficiently powerful...for three-dimensional designs or rounded shapes. The new generation of supercomputers, which can compute a billion bits of information in a second, is the reason why the B-2 bomber, with its rounded surfaces, was designed entirely by computer computations.

Skunk Works, pp20, 21

This indicates that Hopeless Diamond (the original Skunkworks concept) was a compromise between low observability, and what was possible at the time. Here's a link to a B-2 photo - not quite from the side - which shows the saucer-shape profile adapted when the tech allowed,

http://www.bangalorenet.com/system1/chungw/sbpage.html


But even the B-2 had to be able to fly! Hopeless Diamond also was adapted for the F-117 project both because it was possible to make it fly, as well as the fact that the computers could do the calculations. It was not, however, the ultimate shape available,

Several of our aerodynamic experts, including Dick Cantrell, seriously thought that maybe we would do better trying to build an actual flying saucer. The shape itself was the ultimate in low observability. The problem was finding ways to make a saucer fly. Unlike our plates, it would have to be rotated and spun. But how? The Martians wouldn't tell us"

Skunk Works, pp31

Now, it may be possible that those backwoods Kentucky hillbillies were mathematical and military geniuses, translating from Russian the original paper, Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction", and using their hillbilly abacuses to determine the ultimate radar-evading shape for their hoaxes. It's also possible that the hoaxers just happened to select the flying saucer - a name synonymous with a UFO - as their model du jour.

But that's not too fricking likely, is it? Rather, a more reasonable conclusion would allow for at least the possibility that this interesting association occured due to the fact that some of the eyewitnesses really did see objects that exibited as-yet-uninvented stealth characteristics

Heck, even the code name given by the Air Force for the stealth project - Have Blue - seems to be just a little tongue and cheek.

 

[2Dogswalking]

Mr Glenn, I remember reading about the Air Force "Op Have Blue" in Jane's, an article from '98, I believe, about mirror camouflaging, ie, and/or projecting day and night sky onto the photoreactive skins of jets. Do you know of any "testing" that might've included the so-called Phoenix Lights as an exercise? Hundreds of people in a city of several million claimed to have seen at night: 1. Stars through the hull of a massive, black, slow moving craft, roughly triangular, and 2 A varigated pattern of dark cross members, "super structure", along with lights, as the large craft moved over the city. I don't recall the witness who claimed #1, also saw #2, nor vice versa.

It's not much of a stretch to imagine a test of the Have Blue system at night, as the size of craft, and what it actually is - a possible illusion - could be confused, given the limits of night vision below, looking up through many street lights. It would seem logical background lighting could further mask the operation, and given the usual layers of official "false reporting", public hysteria, and differences in point of view, and perhaps changes in what is being projected, it would seem you have the makings of an excellent method to use the public for testing observations of the system, while also capitalizing on the public's fascination about UFO's.

Care to speculate on the Phoenix Lights/Have Blue, or do you have fany urther verifiable information on Have Blue? As I remember, the article claimed a perfect "set up" witness of a retired aircraft builder, who claimed to see, from some miles away, near surrounding mountains, several small planes above the supposed craft, projecting lights down where the large craft was supposed to be seen. He said he did not see a large craft, only the small planes. Probably a disinfo plant witness and/or story. However, hundreds of calls were put into a nearby Air Force base, and they claimed to see nothing, NOTHING, on radar.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

I'm assuming this is some sort of request for further information?

Actually, not really at all Glen. But if you insist. Lets actually read what Mr Rich actually says shall we? Your quote:

Several of our aerodynamic experts, including Dick Cantrell, seriously thought that maybe we would do better trying to build an actual flying saucer. The shape itself was the ultimate in low observability. The problem was finding ways to make a saucer fly. Unlike our plates, it would have to be rotated and spun. But how? The Martians wouldn't tell us"

Skunk Works, pp31

Your talking here of low radar observability - what Rich is talking about is low optical visibility with regards to a classic 50's Saucer shape. Not actually the same animal at all when you gets down to it. Patently, a disk seen edge on presents a minimal visual profile. But you're here talking about electronic Stealth and Mr Rich, frankly, isn't.

Just visual low profile.

Now, thanks for the technical profile on stealth characteristics but as you'll see from simply reading them and referring to the pictures you supply, you can clearly see the B2 is very different in design from that of the Saucers being reported back in the 50's.

The B2 is using flat, angular shapes extensively throughout the vast majority of its airframe - this is a plane designed to fly at high altitude, displaying predominantly its underside during flight. At no angle other than face on does it present anything remotely like what might pass for a disk - and even then its pushing it.

All "curvature" in that design is achieved by making the curve out of flat, angled pieces.

Classic Saucers from the 50's on the other-hand run the gauntlet of shapes from Disc's, Bells, Mexican Hats, Cylinders - smooth, predominantly round profiles from all angles that bear no resemblance to proper airframes capable of flight in the first place, let alone Stealth.

But we don't really have to worry about that, because Mr Rich isn't suggesting anything of the kind.

Read what the man is saying Glen... Saves a chap a lot of time and effort if one simply does that.

well said Mr Anonymous. There seems to be far too many quotes from experts floating around than there are experts to say them.

.... Mmmmmm. Indeed. It never ceases to amaze me how many "Secrets" there are out there regarding Extraterrestrials and Alien technology - secrets so secret that the scientific world in the main remains ignorant of them completely... Government conspiracies so total and complete the world is left completely unaware of The Truth.

In secret labs such and such is being developed based on Alien Technology... blah, blah, blah...

And yet, despite the total nature of the "Secrets" involved, the Conspiracies and all the rest of it, still there is always someone who apparently knows all and everything there is to know about it.

And no one ever finds that simple, obvious fact in the slightest inconsistent with the whole premise of the words "Secret" and "Conspiracy."

If the "Truth" is supposedly so secret that no one else has a clue about whats going on, how is it possible for the person telling us all about it to actually know the "Truth" to begin with?

What inight is it that Jack Shit (<---- incert Experts name here) living in Butt Crack Montanna has that allows such an individual to know all the things the rest of us simply don't and write all about it and publish it on teh internet for anyone to read?

That's the real mystery we really should be looking into.

Not aliens and all the rest of this business, but what's really going on in Butt Crack, Montanna....

Ever notice how often the nutter pick a famous or prominent person - who is always dead - to pin these quotes on?

Notice? Its a guaranteed certainty - I mean, just look at the number of times Nicola Tesler gets mentioned in regard to the subject of UFO's... Dead and barking.

What could possibly be better....

 

[kmguru]

i do not belive earth has been visited by aliens.

I believe in God and son of God, but do not believe there is a daughter of God....

I also believe in the Holy Spirit that is invisible....

These things have been proven by atleast a Billion people...right?

 

[2Dogswalking]

Be that as it may, guru, billions people have gone on faith, or without "knowing", while guru's and shamans have pointed the way to the masses. We now know there is a scientific basis for the "invisible" dimensions of the Spirit World. See Valerie Hunt, "The Science of the Human Vibrations of Consciousness".

She has confirmed the dynamic functions of the human electromagnetic field, "aura's", they exist at the milli-volt level; that these fields intersect with the known "chakra's" of the human body; that "healer's", who claim to see colors in human energy fields, and interact within the fields of others, have now been simultaneously confirmed and recorded.

One of the more interesting things she found, using a specially designed room for research, blocking all exterior EM fields, caused her and her subjects, or anyone in the room, to loose all sense of orientation to time and place. It seems our minds function at nearly the identical frequency of the Earth's EM field. What's fascinating to me about that is, apparently, our ability to function, to be human, and to think, our very existence, requires that we are are constantly in contact with the electromagnetic fields of the earth, that the functioning of our brains cannot happen without it. In other words, we are connected to an earthly, and universal "sense" of consciousness, through our own interactions with it.

Why should any of that be important? Because our sense of God, a Creator, must first reside in the human mind connecting to a universal consciousness of physical energy that literally animates human matter, and therefore, the mind. Perhaps our sense of God is more complex than religious dogma, and "faith" dictates. Maybe its time a scientific paradigm of God Consciousness include the human spirit, not only as a passive believer, but an active co-creator.

 

[kmguru]

Did our astronauts loose all sense of orientation to time and place while in orbit or on the moon since there was no or very little Earth EM field up there?

 

[2Dogswalking]

I suggest you read the book. Hunt is the scientist, and she provides documentation, including how she conducted the experiments. The "field" was completely interrupted within this specially built chamber at Stanford, I believe, and when they stepped out of the chamber, within minutes, their orientation returned. The moon has it's own gravitational effect, as well, the universe, while it is controversial, it is called the "tachyon field". While on the moon, the astronauts had orientation to time and place, as they had visual markers, like the earth, sun, and gravity, and communication. Within the chamber, there was no light, sound, or magnetic "interference" for the senses, including consciousness, to orient to.

The question remains: If our consciousness is maintained through the interaction of our theta waves, specifically, with the outside world, interacting dynamically through the human aura, what effect, then, has God Consciousness on the human spirit? What is its relation to so-called spirit dimension(s)? How can we not be part of it, if we also depend on it to function in the here and now?

 

[glenn239]

Your talking here of low radar observability - what Rich is talking about is low optical visibility with regards to a classic 50's Saucer shape. Not actually the same animal at all when you gets down to it. Patently, a disk seen edge on presents a minimal visual profile. But you're here talking about electronic Stealth and Mr Rich, frankly, isn't.

The F-117 was designed for night operations.

The quote in question is from the chapter devoted exclusively to an aircraft designed to defeat radar; it doesn’t deal with the visual spectrum. Thus at no point does Rich need to distinguish between different forms of low-observability – he’s only talking of radar, and not of acoustic, or visual, or IR, UV, etc. Therefore the fact that uses the term “low observability” and not “low radar observability” is irrelevant – there was no need to make distinction. The direct context was the selection between two contenders for low RCS - Hopeless Diamond, and a flying saucer. Rich’s comments suggest that the stealth fighter would have been a saucer if the tech had been available to make it fly.

Here’s another link demonstrating the general point,

http://www.lowobservable.com/UAV.htm

Note in particular the UAV “Tier 3 Dark Star”. It’s a flying saucer with wings. Also note that it’s described exactly as Rich does in my quote, merely a “low observable” aircraft (the same description as the actual address of the internet sight, I’ll add). “Low observable” means RCS.

The other aircraft pictured all show the same basic blending of the two original concepts – the wing edges all conforming to the Hopeless Diamond scheme of sharp angles (to deflect the radar along predictable “spikes”), combined with center body section displaying, to various degrees, the well-rounded characteristics of a flying saucer. Note in particular the shot of the X-46 landing on the carrier. Chop off those wings, and it looks like a classic UFO, wouldn’t you say?

So, again – were those hillbillies military/mathematical geniuses, or just really, really, really, really good guessers?

The B2 is using flat, angular shapes extensively throughout the vast majority of its airframe - this is a plane designed to fly at high altitude, displaying predominantly its underside during flight. At no angle other than face on does it present anything remotely like what might pass for a disk - and even then its pushing it.

Can you divulge where the USAF provides information on B-2 attack techniques in various radar settings?

Read what the man is saying Glen... Saves a chap a lot of time and effort if one simply does that.

The reason that a flying saucer is the “ultimate” shape seems fairly self-evident; it provides the maximum reduction in signature in all directions. A traditional aircraft, in contrast, has it’s RCS vary wildly depending upon the angle by which it is being viewed. But a flying saucer is uniform, meaning that the leading edge (which is always the stealthiest) is projected throughout the full 360-degree profile of the craft.

Mr Glenn, I remember reading about the Air Force "Op Have Blue" in Jane's, an article from '98, I believe, about mirror camouflaging, ie, and/or projecting day and night sky onto the photoreactive skins of jets. Do you know of any "testing" that might've included the so-called Phoenix Lights as an exercise? Hundreds of people in a city of several million claimed to have seen at night: 1.

Have Blue was the USAF’s codename for the development of the F-117 stealth fighter in the mid-1970’s. Top secret projects aren’t ever exhibited in public, nor would the USAF ever wish to cause alarm to the public, so there is no chance, IMO, that a descendent of Have Blue was responsible for the incident you mention over Phoenix.

The curious thing about Have is the name itself. UFO’s, being flying saucers, are stealthy. Have Blue was the project to acquire stealth. “Blue” was a word previously connected in USAF history with UFO’s – project “Blue Book”.

 

[kmguru]

Some years ago, I designed and built a meditation chamber placed inside a Faraday Cage, that was EM proof. It was insulated for light and sound. One can only hear ones heart beat and stomach rumbles. We all enjoyed meditating there. No ill effects. As a matter of fact, our artistic ability became enhanced.

 

[glenn239]

Here's another link regarding the Dark Star UAV, graphically demonstrating my point.

It's a flying saucer with wings.

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/darkstar.htm

 

[2Dogswalking]

Some years ago, I designed and built a meditation chamber placed inside a Faraday Cage, that was EM proof. It was insulated for light and sound. One can only hear ones heart beat and stomach rumbles. We all enjoyed meditating there. No ill effects. As a matter of fact, our artistic ability became enhanced.

I can onlly suggest, if you are interested in alternative, exact reasons for why Hunt's chamber worked differently than yours would be to contact her for specifications, and to read the book. If I remember right, she also indicated various "enhancements" of ESP skills, through quieting the EM clutter that interfers with our senses, as we tend, without training, to pay attention to interfering stimuli.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Here’s another link demonstrating the general point,

http://www.lowobservable.com/UAV.htm

Ah.... The X-36. That is truely a thing of beauty. I've been nagging the missues to get me one of thoes every christmass for the past 10 years...

Gorgeous.

Okay, lets try this another way Glen.

Note in particular the UAV “Tier 3 Dark Star”. It’s a flying saucer with wings.

Lets focus on the word "Wings" here because Mr Rich, again, is telling you something here throughout that seems not to be apparent in your reasoning here G.

Wings. Stealths have wings. Noticiable, discernable, apparent wings. Doing their bit to do what wings do and keep USAF hi-tech and hard earned US Tax dollars up, up in the skies for Democracy, becasue that's what wings do. They keep an aircraft up in the air and repeatedly you've described this as essentially being a "compromise" in design from going all out Flying Saucer.

Becuse that all round, 360 degree circular design your classic 50's Flying Saucer presents isn't the airframe of a craft capable of flight...

Someone here is probably feeling honour bound to post a picture of those circular USAF props they tried out back in the late 40's, early 50's.

The fact that they had ruddy big props and never got past prototype kind of doesn't disprove the basic principal that a disk shape makes a truly lousy performance aircraft...

Part and parcel of basic UFO classification encompasses the lack of recognisable aircraft features such as pesky things like wings, tails, engines...

Basically anything that coresponds to conventional aircraft.

So Rich, in your quotes and you yourself allude also, the wings get put on the stealth becasue the plane needs to be able to fly.

So what's keeping your classic Flying Saucer airbourne Glen? No wings, no tail, no externally visible means of propulsion - you've got your "stealthy" bird in the air and, basically, the proper thing has got absolutely no business doing that at all.

So what's keeping your average UFO up... It isn't air, so what does that leave you with?


Oh, and:

Can you divulge where the USAF provides information on B-2 attack techniques in various radar settings?

Well Glen, what y'do is you look at the picture and you apply what y'knows about avionics. A plane with a wing to fuselage ration as the B2 is a high altitude cruiser, the reason its making the extensive compromise regarding stealth capability over aerodynamic performance with the relatively curvier fuselage is simply because, in operational status, this is a plane designed to fly high and mainly be seen from either the top down or the ground up - its a bomber, its not designed to take on enemy fighters thus its built to avoid the contingency by basically flying high and dark, only reducing altitude on final approach in its bombing run and even then, probably not by much.

Payload is most likely short deploy, paint targeted. Drop out of nowhere and blast everything to hell.

Crude, but effective.

 

[glenn239]

So what's keeping your classic Flying Saucer airbourne Glen? No wings, no tail, no externally visible means of propulsion - you've got your "stealthy" bird in the air and, basically, the proper thing has got absolutely no business doing that at all.

All wonderful reasoning - and entirely irrelevant to the topic of the thread. Please do recall that the subject at hand is whether there is evidence - any at all - that UFO's ain't from around here. A correlation between a radically advanced science and UFO's would constitute evidence. Dead to rights. More so since the eyewitnesses didn't know of the science in question when making their statements, and the science in question would be necessary to the mission of evasion within a heavily defended air defense network.

But to actually reach a meaningful verdict, it would have to be demonstrated that such photographed phenomenon actually did have stealth characteristics - at least in the 2 dimensional cross-section on the photograph.. If this cannot be done, then proof is lacking.

A plane with a wing to fuselage ration as the B2 is a high altitude cruiser, the reason its making the extensive compromise regarding stealth capability over aerodynamic performance with the relatively curvier fuselage is simply because, in operational status, this is a plane designed to fly high.

I think it safe to assume that, when cruising to and from missions, the B-2 will fly high - where fuel can be burned most efficiently. Whether this means that it would do so during it's attack run is another matter entirely. My guess would be that the bomber, when in a high threat environment, operates closer to the ground - perhaps at 12,000 feet or so.

But that's just a guess. If the USAF starts returning my phonecalls, I'll let you know.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

All wonderful reasoning - and entirely irrelevant to the topic of the thread. Please do recall that the subject at hand is whether there is evidence - any at all - that UFO's ain't from around here. A correlation between a radically advanced science and UFO's would constitute evidence. Dead to rights. More so since the eyewitnesses didn't know of the science in question when making their statements, and the science in question would be necessary to the mission of evasion within a heavily defended air defense network.

But to actually reach a meaningful verdict, it would have to be demonstrated that such photographed phenomenon actually did have stealth characteristics - at least in the 2 dimensional cross-section on the photograph.. If this cannot be done, then proof is lacking.

Mmmmmmm.... very deftly sidestepped there Glen, to a casual observer hardly noticeable at all. I'm quite of the admiration old man, really I am.

However, we both know why you're sidestepping the question "So what's keeping your classic Flying Saucer airborne Glen?" You know it because you know enough about aviation to know what constitutes an airframe capable of flight, and you know precisely why I'm asking that specific question in the first place because we both know that your classic Flying Saucer is a vehicle capable of actual flight to about the same degree a baby grand piano is...

Possibly less, all things considered.

Now, you don't at all strike me as your average UFO-I'll-believe-anything_as-long-as-it-tells-me-what-I-want-to-hear-sort in the slightest. You're very buff with with your reading, you've got an obvious grounding in real world physics.

And y'know damn well whatever it is that might be keeping a UFO up isn't aerodynamics. A UFO presents an airframe designed for atmospheric passage in all directions along its horizontal axis - not flight. Just passage through atmosphere with the least degree of resistance in all directions except up and down.

So the reason you're sidestepping Glen is because y'know exactly where the question is going because you actually do know your stuff.

When it comes to answering the question as posited, so what's keeping your classic Flying Saucer airborne, you've got two basic choices: you're pick of spooky UFO Physics garnered from every corner of the internet, or we take a leaf out of an actual physics book and simply just look at the things as being basically an orbitally deployed electromagnetic glider - essentially engineless, travelling under inertia already applied using electromagnetic resistance as a means of preserving and maintaining altitude.

Either way, spooky UFO Physics or Standard Applied, what your left with is a vehicle which, in operation, is simply honour bound to be chucking out a fair old portion of the electromagnetic spectrum in order to stay up.

And what's the point in building a vehicle with an airframe giving it stealth capability if its principal means of altitude control is basically predisposed to light up a radar screen like a Christmas tree?

Now, unless you can give an acceptable aviational explanation for how such a thing which conforms to UFO Classification flies - this stealth angle of your's really isn't going to hold up, is it?

Hence the asking. But then, y'did kinda know that already, didn'tcha?

 

[kenworth]

wow,bent over the knee and spanked.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Good.... Good Lord! You're absolutely right - and... And I didn't charge anything!

I usually do y'know. I'm very reasonable. Far cheaper than a plumber...

 

[Oli]

It was called Have Blue because that was the random name given to it by the ongoing list - the names are not chosen by a human, they're thrown up by a programme designed to generate random names that have no link to the actual project identity.
And as for

The reason that a flying saucer is the “ultimate” shape seems fairly self-evident; it provides the maximum reduction in signature in all directions

Actually, NO. A saucer shape will give a guaranteed reflection in all aspects, especially side-on. One of the properties of being circular. A stealth aircraft is designed to deflect the signal away from the likely receptors, a circle will always have a reflection going directly back to source.

 

[glenn239]

It was called Have Blue because that was the random name given to it by the ongoing list - the names are not chosen by a human, they're thrown up by a programme designed to generate random names that have no link to the actual project identity.

That’s viable. When was that practice introduced in the USAF?

Actually, NO. A saucer shape will give a guaranteed reflection in all aspects, especially side-on. One of the properties of being circular. A stealth aircraft is designed to deflect the signal away from the likely receptors, a circle will always have a reflection going directly back to source.

Rich indicated in Skunk Works that calculating radar returns off of curved surfaces is a mind-bogglingly complex thing – outside the capabilities of any nation in the 1970’s. You’ll forgive me if I point out that, since we don’t have access to a few supercomputers to run tests with, I’ll decline the argument. Besides, the proof, as it were, is in the pudding. I’ve posted links to some of the latest stealth designs. Everyone following this thread should check them out and come to their own conclusions – subjective impressions are the only ones we've got. Dark Star 3, for instance, is a UFO with wings.

Mmmmmmm.... very deftly sidestepped there Glen, to a casual observer hardly noticeable at all. I'm quite of the admiration old man, really I am. However, we both know why you're sidestepping the question "So what's keeping your classic Flying Saucer airborne Glen?" You know it because you know enough about aviation to know what constitutes an airframe capable of flight, and you know precisely why I'm asking that specific question in the first place because we both know that your classic Flying Saucer is a vehicle capable of actual flight to about the same degree a baby grand piano is...

Sorry for the confusion – I often don’t respond to posts that I agree with, or that otherwise obviously don't require further discussion. To review, I've proposed a possible method - admittingly hypothetical - by which it might be possible to reach a conclusion along the lines of the topic of the thread. It consists of:


1) Scanning the entire inventory of pre-stealth era photographs of UFO's to select any which appear to exhibit low-observability features.

2) Using some hitherto unidentified technique to derive an estimate of the 3-dimensional radar reflection characteristics from the two-dimensional profile available in the photograph.

Now, assuming for a moment that this yet-untried technique was not only possible, but actually successful in a number of cases in identifying pre-1975 objects that would have been very good at evading radar, this would introduce a basic paradox that must be answered:

How could an object exhibit the features of a radically advanced camouflage technique that had not yet been invented?

The reason that an alien explanation would be satisfactory to resolving the dilemma is that it kills two birds with one stone. We could reasonably expect any object with the job profile of sneaking around Earth looking for cows to molest would wish to evade detection (the sentence for cattle "rustling" being rather severe at times in these parts). Further, it allows the science of stealth to exist on earth before we invented it (otherwise the only possibilities would be a fake from a later date than claimed, a lucky fake or accident at the time of the incident, or a failure in the test procedure).

Also any such test, when returning a positive result, would tend to reinforce the veracity of the original photographer's eyewitness report - since they captured an object using a science that they couldn't possibly have predicted (or faked unless by pure luck), the test would tend to strongly corroborate whatever story they claimed at the time.

The conundrum that requires resolution would revolve around the fact of a science existing before we invented it. That, and only that, is the core feature of the dilemma I imagine. You've introduced the notion that flying saucers suck in the flight characteristic department. That's fine, but how would that argument resolve the core contradiction of a science being present on Earth before we invented it? Answer - it doesn't. The problem wouldn't be the fact that it was flying (or resting on the ground, or floating, or lurking near massage parlours, or whatever). The problem would be that it existed at all. Hence, your reasoning is suggestive of a possibility that no such candidate cases will come forward. But if and when one does, it becomes irrelevent.